No luck- Giant Mech Game

One thing though. Having minimum luck is not always a benefit. This comes from someone who's last 2 prototypes had almost zero luck :)

You risk analysis-paralysis and make your game less attractive to new players.
I believe this can be slightly modified with command&colors-style mechanics, or something similar, to add a tiny bit of luck, while streamlining player choices.

Check out this video by Richard Garfield - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av5Hf7uOu-o
Kinda allowed me to look at the luck/rng from a different angle.

Good luck!

Why would you want to make a game with no luck?

Actually...the origins of Chess go back to a game called Chaturanga, which was a hindu game that had 4 players on an 8x8 board and used an oblong die (an elongated 6 sided die) to determine which player moved. In addition, it was heavily used in gambling until Hindu laws forbade all dice-based games.

So even chess had random element in its origins. It took hundreds of years as well as the printing press to solidify the rules and even then, it was still tested and adjusted to what it is today.

If you have several hundred years to perfect a no-luck game, then by all means, go for it. But if you want to pull in new players and not alienate them when the expert gamers emerge, then you probably want to introduce some kind of luck element.

You could introduce unit cards to represent mechs and stack them in the Mech Deck. This way you could restrict and randomize the set of mechs that are allowed to enter the battlefield.

Or you could have a deck of "weather" or some other kind of global effect cards and slightly alter the game conditions (each turn?)

I'm not saying that you do need to include a lot of randomization. But a little option for luck here and there could add a bit of a flavour to the game.

I'm going to be difficult and argue for a game with no random elements. Not that the points for including randomness are invalid, or that I dislike games with random elements, but nonetheless I do also enjoy games with no element of chance. And so do others, despite the potential entry barrier - there are many other very popular strategy games with no randomness besides chess (which I do like), and chess-like games (shogi, chinese chess and most modern fairy chess games). Here is a list of a few, most of which have very simple rules, and are structurally so simple that it is probable that they did not require many years of refinement:

Hive, Go, Reversi, draughts/checkers, halma/chinese checkers, surukarta, nine-man's morris/twelve man's morris, go-moku and four in a row-like games, the jungle game, fox-and-geese (and similar games), hex, and abalone

Regarding the entry-barrier to new players in a luckless game, it is possible to introduce a handicapping system (like in Go) or players can just try to find someone on roughly their own level to play against and so improve their skill. And random elements are no guarantee of a low entry barrier to new players - I would argue that complexity of the rules of play is often a much greater one. And incorporating too much luck will undoubtedly decrease the staying power of a game; I can think of at least one eurogame which we seldom play any more because once the (quite simple) tactics are mastered, it is essentially the roll of the dice which settle who wins. There's a definite tradeoff (you have to reward skill, and reward it sufficiently to get players to keep coming back).

So what I'm saying is that adding random elements is not necessarily the only way of achieving the practical results mentioned. Games with a certain balance of skill and luck are currently fashionable (I use this word hesitantly, because there are good practical reasons for this) but I don't believe that there is only one correct approach. I see a game as a work of art, and people have different tastes in art - some like sculpture, some prefer oil paintings, others music. From an aesthetic point of view, I'd love to see more boardgames without random factors being made - I personally like the challenge of gradually improving my skill and tactics, over years if necessary, and knowing that my victory is completely by my own skill. And some of best of these games will possibly outlast many (though not all) eurogames by centuries.

But if the question is "what sort of game will be easiest to sell at present", then I will concede a game with some elements of chance will probably be a better bet.

I haven't watched the video yet, but I will when I am able to - I think that a friend at work who is also a boardgame fanatic recommended it to me as well - is it is the one where he suggests something to the effect that chance should change your tactical options, rather than potentially giving you a strong advantage or disadvantage relative to the other players? (That is an idea which I completely agree with, and the "best" reason for including them from my aesthetic viewpoint).

However, I don't deny your point; adding random elements can be a sound way of "patching" or increasing the interest-value of a game which would otherwise have a clear winning strategy and thus be pointless. I even once suggested using randomized turn order every two moves in chess as a possible way of postponing the death of the game (at least on the highest level) through the complete analysis of the game tree by computers. But for me, personally, that is a second-best approach, especially if you want to design a working game without luck.

I do still believe (and hope) that it is possible to create a good game which has relatively simple rules, and no random elements during play, but which allows sufficient complexity to not have an obvious winning strategy and make it interesting enough to human players, and perhaps to cause computer programmers some trouble for a few months or years at least before solving it completely. It is one of the things which I would like to do before I die, but I digress.

So, to return the discussion to the original poster's game, I'd personally play-test it extensively without any random elements, and get it as close to the point where it is playable and fun, then add in random elements if necessary or desirable, and re-test. Rules of thumb and general design principles are good and save a lot of time, especially for beginner designers, but adhering to them blindly and without testing whether they are applicable can be limiting at best (it is actually bad practice in engineering, if done mindlessly). But that is just my opinion, and I do lack experience in the field of game design.

PS. For obvious reasons, I wouldn't regard a degree of randomization of the start condition (as in chess960 or laying out obstacles randomly on the board) in quite the same catagory as random elements during play.